Question
Is Genocide a product of modernity and civilization or something rooted in ancient hatreds and human nature? Compare and contrast Zygmunt Bauman and Michael Freeman on the relationship between genocide and the impulses of the modern nation-state. Be sure to discuss what Bauman means when he describes genocide as an act of creation rather than destruction.
Zygmunt Bauman and Michael Freeman present and discuss two different arguments about whether genocide is a product of modernity or something rooted in ancient hatreds and human nature. To reach a conclusion on whether genocide is a modern or ancient phenomena, it’s important to first compare and contrast both authors and their perspectives on the matter.
ReplyDeleteZygmunt Bauman’s argument is mainly based on the Holocaust. He believes that the concept of humanity “emerging from pre-social barbarity” to “civilization” is a myth that is not examined closely or critically refuted as much as it should be. His main claim is that modern civilization was a crucial condition of the Holocaust and that without it, the Holocaust would simply be unthinkable. Modernity made the Holocaust not only possible, but reasonable. In short, Bauman claims that the bureaucratic system creates the very atmosphere in which the idea of the Holocaust could be conceived, slowly yet consistently. It contains all the technical elements needed to execute genocidal tasks.
Bauman claims that mass murder on an unprecedented scale is not something that occurs due to “ancient hatreds” or the resurfacing of our untamed “barbaric” nature. It’s not barbaric or violent or monstrous...it’s organised and technological and eerily mundane. Mass murder on an unprecedented scale happens because of the well developed skills of a precise division of labor, the process of maintaining a smooth flow of command and the impersonal coordination of actions. When you combine this with the fact that modernity has also created symbolic distances and boundaries so distinct that it results in indifference and complacency, acts of genocide occurring seem almost inevitable. The usage of technology in the Holocaust, with its efficiency and speed, is the cherry on top.
Bauman also talks about how genocide is not an act of destruction, rather it’s an act of creation. Bureaucratic culture makes us view society as a set of problems to be solved, a nature to be controlled, mastered, improved or remade. The same way a gardner believes that “weeds must be cut off not so much because of what they are, but because of what the beautiful garden ought to be,” the perpetrators responsible for genocide also kill the victims because they do not fit the scheme of the perfect society. A lot of these victims are killed in a dull, mechanical fashion to create a utopia, not to destroy the victims for the sake of destroying them. In this, genocide is a means to an end, not the end itself. Add to this the fact that modernity has given rise to nationalism and the idea of a united nation with a strong identity, and you have a society where genocide can even be regarded as rational because of the ideologies behind it.
ID: S00045045 - PART ONE
DeleteMichael Freeman’s argument is balanced- he claims that you cannot only insist on the modernity of genocide (like Bauman) or only insist on dissociating it from civilization (like Lemkin). The impression I get is that Freeman believes there are striking similarities between the ancient and modern practices of warfare. He states that “Bauman is certainly correct to tell us that civilization, modernity and genocide are compossible. Lemkin reminds us that modern is not in all respects radially novel.”
He does not necessarily disagree with Bauman (or even strictly disagree with Lemkin). He just balances out Bauman’s argument by introducing Lemkin’s argument (whilst also noting that Lemkin’s is lacking too because it’s one sided). Freeman points out that despite the validity of Bauman’s points, Bauman’s arguments focused on only one side of the coin and not the other. In his article, Freeman sheds light on another perspective, the ancient perspective, that Bauman did not do justice by not taking it into consideration.
Freeman claims that Bauman misses other lessons from the Holocaust that were not modern and how Genocide can actually still be seen as a return to an unregulated form of tribal warfare and how destruction can be seen as going back to barbarism (mainly Lemkin’s point). Granted, this argument isn’t the most cohesive, since the surviving texts of genocides in ancient sources may be exaggerated and unclear, but there is still some truth in it, if only a little. Perhaps it was seen as “holy war” in the past, or given a different “name” or the Assyrians had different intentions and methods and motives ... but the fact still remains: murdering groups of people still happened in the past.
This leads us to the final question. Is Genocide a product of modernity and civilization or something rooted in ancient hatreds and human nature? Upon looking at both perspectives, I believe that it’s incorrect to say Genocide is one or the other. I agree with Freeman’s balanced, rational thought process towards the subject matter. Genocide’s modernity and Genocide’s ancientness both go hand in hand. I believe that Genocide is an echo of what has happened in ancient times, but as soon as this echo reached modern times, it started becoming distorted and twisted. Ruthless murder is not a modern concept, but the new bureaucratic and technological way in which this ruthless murder is being conduced is modern. The desire to organize society has been there for a long time, but now it's based on new principles. To say that Genocide is strictly modern is to ignore the massacres and killings of people of different groups that have happened in the past, and to say that genocide is strictly ancient is to be blinded to how genocide has modern elements that were simply never there before.
ID: S00045045 - PART TWO
The question of whether or not genocide is a product of modernity and civilization comes with a fairly subjective response. What it means to be ‘modern’ or ‘civil’ is expressed differently within any given nation, time, and place. Zygmunt Bauman and Michael Freeman have developed strong opinions and theories responding to these concepts. Bauman defines a modern civilization as one that is led by the design of social engineering, as a process of controlling citizens. He uses examples from the events of the Holocaust and claims that “Modernity is marked by bureaucratic rationalization”, where institutionalization becomes a method of separating and identifying people into sub-groups, creating division; where members of a group disassociate themselves from outcomes that do not concern them. On the contrary, Freeman argues that civilization does not equal modernity, and that it existed before modern civilizations, linking it to tribal warfare. He agrees that “Social institutions produce and maintain moral behavior” leading to the hyper-normalization of actions. Freeman states that there are lessons to be learned from what is not modern about genocide. He touches on subjects of tribal conflict, divisions of labor, trade, land ownership and religion as natural processes of social division. He adds that differences among social groups are rooted in their ideologies leading to violence and discrimination among groups. All in all, Bauman was able to explain genocide through the lens of modernity and the holocaust, while Freeman emphasizes occurrences of genocidal acts in ancient warfare.
ReplyDeleteGoing back, Bauman believes that “Genocide is an act of creation, not destruction” – Meaning, if modern genocide is (as he defines it) an element of social engineering, meant to bring about a social order conforming to the design of a perfect society. Then the intention of this design is meant to create a better world. He means that the purpose of this grand design is to eliminate those who are sought out as “weeds” in order to create a purer world. He relates this concept to a garden full of weeds, and how in eliminating these weeds (who’s nature cannot be changed) you create a healthier garden. Utopian societies cannot be attained without the cause of destruction, where dystopia is born. Therefore, you cannot simply claim that genocide is a product of modernity, nor that it is deeply rooted in human nature, these notions differ depending on context, and situational standards.
S00033978
Zygmunt Bauman believes that the act of genocide coincides with the modern times we live in now. There are two main aspects of the modern nation that have Bauman come to that conclusion, one of them being the bureaucratic society. Bauman says that it was the bureaucratic rationality, which diffuses the responsibility so as no one takes the blame and produces emotionless strategic thinking dissociates the perpetrators from the outcome of the genocide and creates a social barrier between the people and reduces the victims to numbers or inanimate objects like ‘cargo’, all that which is created by modern day bureaucracy caused the holocaust to occur. Said in Bauman’s own words, “it was the rational world of modern civilization that made the Holocaust thinkable” (Hinton 111), and paired with the idea of civilization and everything that comes along with it like technology also aids genocide in happening. Moreover, Bauman thinks of genocide as an act of creation rather than destruction, and the rationale behind that is that it is just like gardening; weeds have to be removed to make a beautiful garden and weeds cannot be refined or modified or be made better, the only way to enhance the garden is by the extermination of the weeds (Jews).
ReplyDeleteAs for Michael Freeman, his argument lay in poking holes in Bauman’s thinking of the causation of genocide by modernity. Freeman also draws on Raphael Lemkin and his original definition of the term ‘genocide’ to show that there is a missing piece in it that has not been considered by Lemkin.
Freeman says Bauman doesn’t look into what was similar in the holocaust to other genocides but only on how it occurred in modern times and how the conditions primed the holocaust. Freeman does not disregard Bauman’s point on the connection of modernity with genocide; in fact he sides with it as technology definitely makes it easier and more efficient to carry out the atrocity. However, it is important to look back into history and examine cases in which there were mass murder of people and the destruction of property that perhaps were acts not called genocide at the time but they certainly match our modern understanding of it. Freeman gives the example of Assyrians to support his point. The agendas may have changed from past to present as, in the ancient times, such actions of destruction were fueled by diffidence of land and the idea of glory, while now it is more connected with the difference in race and nationality. Freemans says that Bauman “overlooks the association between genocide with warfare” (Freeman 209).
Regarding Lemkin, he believes that genocide is an act of reversion to barbarism and how it is an unjust war where one side was able to fight but not the other. He says that acts of barbaric extermination occurred in civilizations before, so in that sense he disagrees with Bauman that it is the idea of civilization that prompts it because that element has always been present. Freemans adds on to that by saying that genocide is indeed a civilized process, which is more dangerous, as it is organized, planned, and carried out with specific intentions. In this area, both Bauman and Lemkin are correct; bureaucracy with its indifference and technology with its efficiency cause genocide, and the fact that it is an act that has always been happening as long as there were forms of civilization existing even if nothing was documented as ‘genocide’ explicitly. Freeman reminds us though that, “Bauman and Lemkin and partly mistaken: Bauman in insisting upon the modernity of genocide and Lemkin in insisting upon dissociating it from civilization” (Freeman 221), referring to it as reversion to barbarism and not taken into consideration the modern factors that makes a nation more easily primed for elimination.
DeleteI think genocide is neither modern or ancient, it just occurs when certain elements are put in place like a jigsaw puzzle where all the pieces fit together to create this act of destruction. Mass murder did occur thousands of years ago and continued to happen throughout the ages until today but it still not in the human nature to want to destroy a nation with innocent, unable human beings in it simply because they are viewed as ‘cancerous’ or ‘weeds’ from ethnocentric people. It is the factors that come into play together at the same time that primes certain people to become victims and others be the perpetrators and cause bloodshed to happen. Therefore it could take place now or later as it did before, sometimes with the aid of technology and sometimes it is for personal agendas like glory or diffidence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnthropologists and sociologists have long debated if modernity is a requirement of genocide. On the one hand, humanity has a long history of cross-group hatred and warfare, and on the other, modern nation-states have achieved casualties that dwarf any from the aforementioned hatreds. Nothing exemplifies this point better than the catastrophic impacts of the Holocaust on the Jewish in Europe. By looking at the different approaches to this debate by Zygmunt Bauman and Michael Freeman, I hope to illustrate that modernity is not the cause of genocide, but as Bauman said, “modern bureaucracy must result in Holocaust-like phenomena”.
ReplyDeleteI would like to note, and I know that some may disagree, that Bauman does not state that modern nation-states are necessary for genocide, but rather, that they are necessary for Holocaust-level genocidal campaigns (evidenced in multiple sections where he references historical genocide). His perspective breaks down the components of the modern nation-state in order to contextualize the Holocaust. First, there is modernity, the framework of perpetual progress and development. Then the nation-state, with its massive bureaucratic capabilities. When taken in a racist direction, modernity’s logic concludes at the creation of a utopian society through the elimination of the undesirable elements within it. This makes the Holocaust and other modern genocides unique to historical cases of genocide, as Bauman states, because they are modern and implement this logic of creating a perfect society as their end goal. This, combined with the nation-state’s ability to implement decisions effectively and efficiently, results in extreme and severe execution of power against marginal groups/nations within the state’s borders.
Freeman, while agreeing with Bauman’s ideas of modern-day genocides as progressively focused, as opposed to Lemkin’s idea of modern genocides as regressive, disagrees with Bauman on these genocides being modern, arguing that they are civilized genocides, and creating definitional nuance between civilization and modernity. Though the differentiation is not clearly delineated in Freeman’s work, it may be safe to assume that civilization is the centralized (and hierarchical) structuring of society and consolidation of power, whereas modernity is the mindset of a perpetual civilizing process, further differentiated by its inextricable link to globalization.
Freeman further nuances the discussion of genocide by noting that the term genocide has been attributed to imperial or state campaigns that acted internally (Khmer Rouge), externally (Genghis Khan) or both (Nazi Germany).
In conclusion, I agree with Freeman in that Bauman’s focus on the Holocaust both strengthens his work because of its understanding of genocide as a progressive, not regressive, endeavor, as well as the revelation of Holocaust-level genocides as the conclusion of the modern nation-state project; and weakens it because it fails to separate genocide from modernity, not pointing out genocides in pre-modern civilizations.
S00046211
ReplyDeleteZygmunt Bauman proposes that genocide is a product of modern civilization, stating that it was a necessary condition for the Holocaust. It is through bureaucratic societies that such mechanically efficient mass killings can be carried out, modern technological advancements and strict organization of the bureaucratic states are necessary for a genocide to occur. In Freeman’s view genocide is a product of civilization but not modernity, he recognizes, based on Mann’s ideas, that “social stratification and the state may be preconditions of highly destructive wars and genocide” (Freeman 217). Drawing on Lemkin’s ideas he also believes genocide involves a reversion to barbarism. He illustrates this by the many mass killings that have happened throughout history, he also believes that Bauman does not assess the relationship between warfare and genocide closely enough and that he focuses on the Holocaust entirely with no assessment of other genocides.
Where Bauman and Freeman differ is their believes as to why the nation state carries out mass killings. Bauman claims that the nation state carries out genocide because of a desire to build a perfect society based on “social engineering as a scientifically founded work aimed at the institution of a new, and better, order” (Hinton 119). Thus, genocide is a process of creation rather than destruction. Freeman views the motives as: grain, glory, fear, revenge, ideology, power and terror. In this he makes no mention of the creation of a new world based on rationality (I would classify this as different from conquerors who wished to form empires based on glory or ideology). While both agree on how civilization has facilitated war and destruction it is on the basis of rationality that a distinction between modern and historical mass killings is formed. All of the motives Freeman states are necessary for warfare to occur, but can we classify all warfare as genocide? While he critics Bauman for overlooking associations between genocide and warfare I suspect that classifying all warfare and mass killings as genocidal rather than clarifying warfare as an aspect of genocide hinders our understanding, and therefore our ability to prevent genocide. Ultimately, I don’t think this line of thought is productive. This discussion comes down to the definition of genocide, while the terms of who should and shouldn’t be included as a target group have been debated, perhaps a clearer understanding of how states can commit genocide without hindrance would be a better conversation to have. Clarifying the different motives of genocide and warfare, and the requirements for each, would in my opinion lead to a more fruitful discussion.
While I do strongly agree with Freeman that to base the entirety of our understanding of genocide on one case leaves a lot of room for error and misjudgment. I would have to side with Bauman that genocide is inherently modern, this modernity, drawing from Max weber’s work, is bureaucratic rationalization. It was the rational thought of the modern world that succeeded in tying racist rhetoric to science in an effort to legitimize it. When labelling genocide as an act of creation rather than destruction Bauman means to state that genocidal states intend to create a better world/nation through the elimination of a ‘cancer,’ in the Holocaust’s case it was a racially superior world. The ‘cancer’ targeted is a hindrance to the betterment of society, making their removal by any means the natural solution. And with this rational modernity, states were able to spread indifference in their populations, through spreading out responsibility so that there can be no accountability, dehumanizing the target population, dissociating the public from the issue and making it distant and impersonal to any onlookers. Making the population feel distant and unconcerned with genocide while simultaneously being complicit in it. Unlike historical warfare it was carried out impersonally and formally. “Often they were killed in a dull, mechanical fashion with no human emotions – hatred included” (Hinton 121). Freeman acknowledges this difference in his closing statement but doesn’t seem to view it as enough to separate warfare and genocide, “The Assyrians celebrated their killings. Modern culture, in the face of genocide, is weak, vacillating, collaborationist, shocked, guilty and ineffectually humanitarian.”
DeleteThere is a stark difference between mass killings in the modern world and the ancient world, it is my belief that that difference is what defines genocide, it doesn’t need to be said that all mass killing are inhumane but the modern world utilizes a form of slaughter that needs to be understood through a modern classification, the word ‘war’ and ‘killing’ does not fully encapsulate what happened in the Holocaust. Perhaps then genocide should be judged by the indifference and complicity it produces in people. In historical warfare there was cause, glory for god, for land, for tribe/king but in modern genocide there was passivity, a clinical removal of a ‘cancer’. In modernity we find the engineer and scientist participants in genocide not for ideology but for the sake of following orders.
In my opinion Genocide might be a product of modernity but I believe that it is something that is rooted in ancient hatreds and human nature. There are many factors that makes a specific ethnicity target to genocide; for instance, religion, traditions, language and economy. In the case of the Armenian Genocide, Armenians were minority in the Ottoman Empire and were Christians with different language and traditions. It is said that the cause of the Genocide was because Armenians sided with the Russians in a battle between Ottomans and Russians, but there is no justification for such an act against a group of innocent people just because they do not belong to a larger race. Although some modern means can also cause genocide such as the case of the Rohingyas in Myanmar, hatred, the intent and not accepting that specific group as part of the larger majority can be the underlying and the main reasons behind taking the step to genocide.
ReplyDeleteBauman and Freeman had different views on genocide. Freeman’s assumption was that genocide is a reversion to pre-modern barbarism and Bauman believes that it is fundamentally modern. Modern civilization that carries technology, bureaucracy, economics and scientistic reasons have their impact on genocides. Most of the time what we all observe is that none of the international organizations or the community itself wants to take part in a conflict or genocide because they do not want to take the responsibility and harm their interests. And here comes the main question “how can we prevent genocides If no one wants to interfere or recognize what has happened before?” The keyword in here is “interests”, and at the end of the day the targets are a group of people that are harmed and killed because of their identity.
Bauman’s notion of “genocide as an act of creation rather than destruction” has two main meanings. First as an example of this notion is the Armenians after 1915 Genocide. Genocide created a new Armenia outside the land of Armenia. I mean by that, Genocide created “diaspora”. Diaspora means outside. Diaspora Armenian is an Armenian who is born outside its motherland. So, what usually genocide does is that it creates the same nation in different state. The same goes to the Holocaust, when Hitler used different inhumane means to kill Jews and spread them to different parts of the world, in a difference that Armenians were forced to leave their homes and marched to other states mainly to Lebanon and Syria. Second, as Bauman mentioned, “genocide as an act of creation of an ideal society (Utopia).” Through genocide perpetrators think that they will create an ideal society in which everyone is perfect. But can a human being create a Utopian society? Hitler killed Jews because he wanted to preserve only his race and people who were intelligence, pretty, and ideal but he failed because he left behind a tragedy when he tried to take actions to satisfy his party. Ataturk Killed Armenians in order to erase a nation that does not have the same traditions, religion and language. So, in order to prevent other genocides, we have to understand and recognize each and every genocide that have took place previously for us to have a better world without discriminating one another.
Part one:
ReplyDeleteBauman’s article analyzed the legitimacy of modernity and the relationship between modernity and racism, he provides us with a fundamental knowledge of the social aspect of the holocaust. Moreover, Bauman starts by pointing out that modern genocide is genocide with a purpose. It is a means or a way to another end. and that end was the creation of the "perfect" society. Furthermore, while our image of western civilization represent humanity, justice and eliminated advanced societies, one of these societies has made the Holocaust possible with considering all factors, we live in a type of society that facilitated a genocidal crime. However, Bauman argues that Hitler did not kill to expand territory, he killed to make a perfect world order, with help of the creation of the highest level of the Nazis efficiency, and centralized directed bureaucracy. Bauman’s, presented the idea that while the holocaust required modernity, all of modernity is not a "Holocaust" to say that we live in that situation daily would make it seem like the holocaust was something that was bearable or something we can deal or live with.
That is, genocide happened while multiple events were happening at the same time. And these events facilitate the execution of the holocaust, which brought together many factors that separately wouldn't lead to genocidal act, these events were, the radical and modern anti-Semitism by Hitler especially, which he transformed into a state policy. While he created a powerful centralized state with the most efficient bureaucracy, and the main factor would be the state of emergency or the warfare. Combined, these were the factors needed for a genocide on the scale of the Holocaust. Moreover, Bauman argued the modern myth that is violence no longer part of the civilization is because, of the reality that violence was being invisible to the mass, since most people do not see it in a daily basis it did not happen. More impotently, he explained the link between the violence and efficiency, when the means of violence are subjected to more institutional rational purposes and been discontented of the moral ends. Which was reached by functional division of labor and imposing technicality over moral responsibility. In addition, Bauman explained the dehumanization of bureaucratic by saying
“Dehumanization starts at a point when, through a distinction, the objects of a bureaucracy disappear and are replaced by numbers”. The outcome is the fact that bureaucratic mode of action, as it has been developed during the creation of the modernized society, had all the needed technical elements to comet genocidal acts. As a result, bureaucracy was important to the process of 'improving' ideology which finally enabled the gardener to redesign his garden and protect it from weeds.
Part two:
DeleteOn the other hand, Michael Freeman’s article was a response to Bauman’s article, Freeman analyzed the clime that empathizes modernity as the logistics of genocide. By providing an in-depth look to the historical sociology of genocide and the missing interrelation between constructive and destructive features of civilization in genral. Freeman slightly disagrees with Bauman on focusing in the role of modernity without consideration of the overall situation by being one-sided. Moreover, Freeman find Bauman’s climes that “the modern ideal of the purposefully designed, fully controlled and conflict free society is therefore potentially genocidal”. And Freeman considers that misleading and not directly connected to the war which was a common dominator of the genocide, even with Halter’s efficient bureaucracy. Freeman acknowledge how powerful Bauman’s theoretical approach for understanding the modernity of the holocaust, but it's not accurately collective or inclusive. Freemans article attempts to clarify the problems of not using holistic thinking approach while analyzing the holocaust, and in compression with Bauman’s, Freeman article has more balanced and more historically informative points of views. He demonstrated the Historical analysis of genocide according to Frank Chalk and Kurt Johnsons. And he investigated the root of the genocidal behavioral through history which started by the invention of settled agriculture in the level of human groups that resulted in developing instant and motives of war, such as raiding territorial defense and capture of slaves. The identification of a human group with a settled territory acquired a religious significance.
s00052830
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn comparing and contrasting Zygmunt Bauman and Michael Freeman, and their distinctive point of views regarding genocide, I was able to form my own opinion. I believe that genocidal acts have been historically present, and we must not neglect that. However, I side more with Bauman and his claims that the introduction of modern technologies and the use of bureaucratic rationality is what makes genocide modern.
ReplyDeleteBauman draws on Max Weber’s work on bureaucracy and modernity as the iron cage of bureaucracy. When you look at people as numbers, you can push people through structural and physical violence, via the bureaucratic machinery of the state. There are points of criticism for Bauman, since he uses the Holocaust as the ideal model for genocide. He focuses on the Holocaust as a case-study. It is neither the first genocide nor the last, and Freeman picks up on that. Nevertheless, the organizational efficiency of the murders speaks to the use of technology and the bureaucratic efficiency that gives Bauman the reason to assume only a modern nation-state would do it this way (issuing orders, building of concentration camps like factories, etc.) Freeman criticizes Bauman's arguments and takes a more 'human nature' approach. However, I think he underestimates the role society, social formation, culture, and time you are in, play in allowing a different set of characteristics to emerge from your human nature. Freeman refers back to tribal warfare and Lemkin, to show how barbarism and destruction are linked. While I don't disagree with Freeman, I feel like he doesn't stress the modernity of it all enough.
In this sense, I believe we live in a society in which the meaning of technology comes to play a role in how we think of ourselves as either superior or inferior to other, and the use of these instruments to demonstrate to ourselves that we are superior over others. This sort of calculative thinking in administering a set of rules and procedures over a population, creates dehumanization and indifference. It deals with people in an extremely impersonal, insensitive way, where people are reduced to numbers and expressed in technical terms. Thus, these modern tools of structural and physical violence are what creates destruction. Its what bureaucracy produces that does damage to a great number of people.
- Zygmunt Bauman and Micheal Freeman share different views when it comes to expressing whether Genocide is a product of modernity and civilization or something that is rooted in ancient hatreds and human nature. While Bauman is pro-Genocide and believes that barbaric tendencies are a myth, Freeman believes that Bauman is ignoring the fact that although Genocide is a modern term, and that it still existed in the past and modern civilization can in fact be influenced by this.
ReplyDelete- When reading Zygmunt Bauman’s article we learn that this man believes that Genocide is a must in society as it can improve the community and people by allowing the higher power, also known as the bureaucratic system, to keep specific group of people controlled and eliminated. For example, if we look at the holocaust, a violent muss murder Genocide that targeted and killed millions of Jewish people, was created to get rid of the Jews. Hitler and the bureaucratic system had the power and decision to label the Jews as a threat because of their race and religious beliefs, as it was not as superior to Hitler’s race and religion. Bauman mentions that without the technology and modern civilization that exists, the holocaust would not have happened and that this may justify the killing of this marginalized group of people as it is a way for people to form their own opinions and group themselves with what they believe in. Of course I do believe the beaurcratic system has the power to get rid of who they want, but I do not agree that it is a rational or the correct way to think or act upon. The bureaucratic system seems to view society as a game, where they can control people and decide who to keep, who to get rid of and what to improve, and having this much power can be dangerous. Bauman seems to think that mass murder should not be viewed as a bad thing, as a better cause can come out of the outcome, but he needs to understand that everyone has their own their own version of right and wrong. Utopia may exist in our heads, but we should keep in mind everyone has their own version in their head of what a utopia or perfect world looks like and in reality we can not all agree what a perfect world would look like. Bauman believes that this is a act of creation, when in reality, I believe it is creating a state of destruction.
- Now moving on to Freeman, although he does not state whether or not Genocide is something modern or in human nature, he does state that Bauman neglects to do discuss that although Genocide is a modern term, it definitely existed in the past times, referring to barbarism. He mentions that it may not have been called Genocide, but murdering and attacking groups of people is not something new and that we should not forget that. Freeman also discusses that because Genocide is a modern and civilized process, it is risky, dangerous and extreme, as the reasons are now more person than in the past. For example, when the United States of America attacked Iraq for the sole purpose to get oil for the U.S; this was a more personal reason that resulted in negative outcome as the U.S destroyed Iraq and did not receive any oil. This causes unnecessary war, murder and beef between certain groups of people, which can be viewed as destruction rather than creation.
- To conclude, Bauman is a man who believes the world can benefit from mass killings and genocide but fails to support his thesis by leaving out the fact that people have been killing groups of people since barbarism. Just because Genocide is a modern term, does not mean that it has not been in human nature’s blood for years, and this makes his ideology weak, in my opinion if one wants to make a point you should cover all aspects of the topic which he fails to do. I have to agree with Freeman as he discusses both modern and ancient times, making his ideas more credible. Of course Genocide is horrible and no sane human would admit to hate/killing groups of people, it still does exist, and it is topic all should be educated on in order to understand how and why it happens.
50076
Bauman and Freeman have different approaches to what could possibly cause genocide and in order to answer the question of whether genocide is a product of modernity or if it's an innate behavior, we need to compare and contrast their ideologies. Zygmunt Bauman argued that genocide is a consequence of modern civilization and that modernity provided the means that made genocidal acts a possibility. Bauman used the holocaust as an example to explore the idea that bureaucratic systems seeped their way into the german society and caused a social havoc in which the jewish were perceived as different and inferior. Therefore, Bauman didn't believe that having genocidal tendencies is part of human nature but more of a twisted scheme by bureaucracy to create what they think would be a utopian world which justifies their mass murders as a pursuit for the greater good; and that's why he thought that genocide is an act of creation rather than destruction cause in order for the society to progress and flourish, you need to eliminate the obstacles. Freeman on the other hand thinks Bauman made valid points about modernity and genocide, however, he believes Bauman failed to look at historical events that show genocide existed in the past perhaps under a different terminology. Freeman argues that genocide is not distinct to modern era as it was somewhat influenced by ancient mass killings, however, modernity provides means that make genocide more extreme.
ReplyDelete31480
Genocide is a topic that most people are aware of, especially when war is so common in this world. With it being a popular topic, it is clear that a lot of scholars have different opinions about it, and in particular, if it’s a product of a modernity/civilization or if it’s in human nature. In Michael Freeman’s article “Genocide, Civilization and Modernity”, he talks about multiple different opinions on genocide, that of Bauman, Lemkin, and even himself. When it comes to Bauman’s opinion on genocide, it’s clear that he believes that it’s a product of modernity. He mentions how the Holocaust happened even when the perpetrators were civilized, so being “barbaric” had nothing to do with genocide since they were completely sane, well-educated men. He also mentioned that modern societies make people more likely to act in immoral behavior, which further explains why he thinks that Holocaust was possible. He also claims that the recipe for genocide is “when the leaders of modern state bureaucracies bear grand designs and are emancipated from social constraints”. Bauman also believes that genocide is caused by engineering, power, and rationalization, which are a necessity of modern nation states. Freeman on the other hand, disagrees with some of Bauman’s claims. He is unable to agree with Bauman on the fact that civilization is equal to modernity and would prefer if Bauman associated genocide with warfare, which he failed to do. Freeman also expresses that Bauman only focused on the Holocaust, which isn’t the only case of genocide in history.
ReplyDeleteFreeman then mentions Lemkin’s views on genocide, which were the complete opposite of Bauman’s. Although Lemkin was the one who came up with the word “genocide” and was the first person to call the Holocaust a genocide, he had completely different opinions on what it’s a product of. He claims that although the Nazis applied modern technology, there are many other cases of genocide in history, so our opinions can’t just be based on the Holocaust. However, he also goes on to mention that he believes that the Holocaust was a reversion to barbarism. When it comes to Freeman’s argument, he stands somewhere in the middle. He mentions multiple flaws in both Lemkin and Bauman’s arguments, for example, he doesn’t agree with how Bauman insists on the modernity of genocide, but also doesn’t agree with Lemkin for dissociating it from civilization. Provided those arguments, I believe that Freeman has the best opinion since he chose to stand in the middle of both arguments and to not choose a one-sided one because genocide has been around for centuries, so we can’t necessarily call it a product of a modern nation state like Bauman did. In addition, I also can’t make myself call it a product of “human nature” or “going back to our barbaric ways”, because I don’t believe we’re born with the need to wipe out a whole civilization due to hatred, and not everyone is able to participate in such an inhumane act.
S00028891- Reve
ReplyDeleteThe question of what goes on in the mind of terrorists and “genociders” remains a mystery; one can blame it on their mental stability and childhood traumas and one can defend their beliefs, pride and values. In my opinion, Genocide is rooted in ancient hatreds and human nature, as well as it is the product of modernity and civilization. Since the beginning of mankind there has been division of labor, segregation and subordination, which created hegemonies and constituted hierarchies. Thus, it is in human nature to dominate and lead, to eradicate and discriminate against “The other”. Nevertheless, modernity and civilization helped advance methods and techniques of Genocide, it gave leaders the opportunity to plan and commit such horrendous large-scale murders and their motives were all based on religion, race, even the shape of your nose and color of your eyes (Aryan race- Hitler’s master plan). The main “ingredients” of genocide was the following: a base of utopian ideology, a packet of racial enmity, plenty of state terror and some indifferent bystanders. All genocides were formed on different rationales however, they lead to the same consequences.
Zygmunt Bauman argues that genocide is a product of modern civilization and an activation of “creation” rather than destruction, that it is the creation of an ideal society. An example of this would be the Holocaust, how Hitler tried to exterminate all the Jews and preserve his race. Bauman also quotes that it was “rational world of modern civilization that made the Holocaust thinkable”. He mentions that modernity brought the level of differences, mainly of outward appearances which builds segregated groups. According to Bauman there are four elements of modern civilization: technology, bureaucratic rationality/thoroughness, economistic reasoning and scientistic thinking. One of the current examples we can currently refer to, to note out that genocide is the result of modern civilization, is China; In China all the Chinese Muslims are being tortured in numerous inhumane ways for one main objective and it is to eradicate all the Muslims in China. Moreover, I would agree with Zygmunt Baumant to a certain extent; Genocide is the product of modern civilization, but it does not result with creation, it results with terror, loss and sorrow.
Michael Freeman somehow agrees with Zygmunt Bauman in which he claims that Bauman’s association of genocide with the process of civilization is accurate. However, Freeman reckons that Bauman overlooks the coalition between genocide and warfare and that Bauman is far too focused on the Holocaust as a “prototype for genocide”. Freeman further explains how Lemkin’s term of Genocide was coined and that the main objective behind the term being formulated by Lemkin was the waging of war by a state in order to destroy nations such as the Nazi’s case; “The German State under the influence of the Nazi Ideology was waging war against nations.”
To conclude, based on my perspective, genocide can be an outcome of modernity and civilization as Zygmunt Bauman states, but it is not an activation of creation, instead it leads to destruction. Freeman also makes a valid point in which he supports Lemkin’s assumption that genocide is a reversion to ancient barbarism.
According to Zygmunt Bauman, the ideology that humanity emerged from pre-social barbarity, is far from reality. The Hobbesian problem and nature of man has not been resolved and for that, efforts for civilization must be more extensive. Modern civilization was a necessary condition for success of the Holocaust. The rationality of modern civilization made it thinkable and possible. The Holocaust was not only the technological achievement of an industrial society, but also the organizational achievement of a bureaucratic society. The idea of modern civilization was used to exterminate almost an entire population in the industrial/modern society. Bauman emphasizes that bureaucratic culture prompts people to view society as an object of administration, to be controlled, manipulated and altered. It views society as a collection of problems to be solved, a target of ‘Social Engineering’ (put through social change), by dividing into citizens and ‘others’ who would be exterminated. With the bureaucratic culture, the idea of the Holocaust could be conceived, consistently with planning. Instrumental rationality and the bureaucratic form of institutionalization made the Holocaust possible and reasonable. The specific implementation of ideologies such as modernity and civilization were rational methodologies leading to genocide. At the same time, the Holocaust exposed the weakness and fragility of human nature, which is abhorrence of murder and fear of responsibility of immoral behavior. However, it also shows the tendency of humans to engage in the same acts and deviant behaviors if forced to, and if influenced with attitudes of hatred. The Holocaust did not arise from irrational emotions but arrived in a factory-produced vehicle, wielding weapons only the scientifically advanced could possess, following a rigid path designed by scientifically managed organizations. This means it arose with produced preparedness induced by the advanced/modern organization.The perpetrators of the Holocaust were all civilized. The conception that civilized societies act as a moral force, as a system of institution, moralizing and humanizing behavior by imposing normative order and protecting social peace is not wrong, but diverts our attention from the destructive potential of the civilizing process.
ReplyDeleteMichael Freeman comparatively studied Lemkin and Bauman. When leaders of modern state bureaucracies have grand and ideal designs and are free from social constraints, we have factors contributing to genocide.It demonstrates what the rationalizing and engineering tendencies of modernity are capable of doing. The notion of the purposefully designed, controlled and conflict-free society potentially leads to genocide. He mentions that by focusing the lessons of genocide on the problems of modernity, Bauman,due to his different level of analysis, misses out important aspects, such as the association between genocide and warfare. Nazism and the Holocaust were a reversion to barbarism. This is because international law of war was a hallmark of a civilized society and emphasized on the protection of civilian populations. The Holocaust was war against nations and not states, violating the law. Thus, instead of a mark of civilization, it was an indicator of reversion to barbarism. Freeman notes that power and motives are necessary but not sufficient conditions for genocide.To understand why the perpetrators committed genocide, it is necessary to know the reasons for such intentions and motivation.
Bauman refers to genocide as an act of creation rather than destruction. The social engineering program aims at inducing social change by force in the way of civilization. He describes it as a garden to be designed and kept in a planned manner that is most idealistic and without flaw. In this case, dividing people into citizens to be cared for and unwanted people/‘the others’ similar to weeds to get rid of and eliminated. Even though, this is destruction of a population, it is the creation and birth of the ideal/Utopian society the perpetrators aimed for.
With the definition of genocide being discussed and argued upon by academics, the only thing I know for sure about the act is that it intentionally kills a group of people. I would say I am torn between the details of what genocide entails due to the various political and philosophic authors competing to prove their perspective “right”. After reading Bauman and Freeman’s articles, I believe genocide is a product of humanity with or without the assistance of a bureaucracy, technology, and division of labor, to name a few. Ancient hatred and the nature versus nurture argument can also support genocide analysis and questioning. According to Bauman, genocide is a product of modern civilization but Freeman questions this association and suggests that genocide should be seen from a historical-sociological approach. Freeman states that Lemkin is incorrect by arguing that genocide is a reversion to barbarism because Freeman believes that genocide is a civilized activity. Also in his perspective, Bauman is incorrect by believing that civilized genocide is modern. Freeman argues that some historical motives for war (raiding, territorial defense, religious justification), beginning in agricultural settlements, helped create proto-nation-states with forms of leaders and militaries. Some imperialistic goals were even compatible with the UNGC. Freeman goes against Bauman’s argument of indifference and social engineering as a modern concept born from bureaucracy because past civilizations (like the Assyrians) generated their power with the division of labor, and their own form of technology and innovation (for example, tool making) which created a social hierarchy and differences in their community to bring order. An interesting metaphor Bauman uses to symbolize genocide as an act of creation rather than destruction is comparing it to “gardening”. The gardener determines what is a tool, a raw material, what is useless and irrelevant, what is harmful, and what is a weed or an unwanted pest. This justifies the gardener’s actions and makes them classify things based on the benefit of its own plant, which is what Bauman compares the motives of the Holocaust to (that of a gardeners’). Genocide also creates distance between the contributors of the genocide and the outcome itself, inhibiting the perpetrators awareness of blame and guilt. Instead, the moral responsibility is substituted with technical. The motives of the modern bureaucracy to commit this crime is to create a utopian society absent of the “virus.” As Bauman states, “the design gives it [genocide] the legitimization; state bureaucracy gives it the vehicle; and the paralysis of society gives it the ‘road clear’ sign” (132). One can’t be carried out without the other. Indeed, this is a creation made by humanity.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteZygmunt Bauman and Michael Freeman both view genoicde in different ways. Wether genocide is a product of modernity and civilization or something rooted in ancient hatreds and human nature.
Bauman believes that genocide is a product of modernity. Bauman used an example such as the Holocuast and mentioned that such things happens due to the bureaucratic rationalization, where mechanically mass killing can happen. On the other hand, Michael Freeman stands somewhat in the middle of the two argumentsof Lemkin and Bauman.He argues Baumans side of social engineering because genocide is there for centuries. He also said that Bauman focuses alot on the holocaust. Freeman also focuses on historical facts on how genoicde started by the invention of settled agriculture that resulted in war. He doesnt tottally disagree with Bauman nor totally agrees with Lemkin.
Bauman also talks about how genocide is not an act of destruction, rather it’s an act of creation. I think its beautiful words. From my understanding a bureaucratic system makes us view society as a set of problems to be solved and controlled.This system should be perfect, and if the system is perfect, some sacrifices has to be made. In my opinion I tend to agree that genocide is a product of modernity, I believe that wars that happened in centuries had different goals, but due to modernity i believe genocide has been created. That the country has to be so perfect that a group of people should be destroyed. But back then I believe that war had different morals and goal from geonicde bureaucratic system societies
S00043793
DeleteS00042465 - Wahab Almutawa
ReplyDeleteThe evidence that support the claim that genocide is a possible product of modernity as Zygmunt Bauman suggest seem to be inconclusive to me at least. Here we can get into the semantics of what constitute a genocide and what does not. Only after that gathering all the historical narratives that touch the surface of the concept of genocide that the semantics were all agreed upon and the term is defined clearly. By process of filtering these events into two categories one that falls under the timeline of modernity and the other that predates that. Only when the the category of pre-modern genocides is empty by this account we can take Zygmunt's proposition more seriously. Other than that it seems like a pre-mature assumption. Also the disregard of the barbaric human nature seems misplaced. It does not take much for someone to realize the so called Shadow as Carl Jung described it or in other words the barbaric human nature. while Bauman does not give a detailed reasoning behind his disregard to the nature of humanity as being bad, Michael Freeman opposes that view by way of doubling down on the idea that violence is an innate human nature. Now to clarify, I am not saying that human beings are born to be bad, but that they are born with an untapped potential that is somewhat determined by their genetic coding and environment. And there if there is a way to trace these two factors to a time that predates the rise of modernity only then can we have a conclusive answer on the matter. Anything beyond that should be viewed with skepticism.
It could however be argued that genocide is a form of creation rather than destruction as Bauman did. Indicating that a nation state or the controlling force behind the genocide is somewhat building a narrative for people to follow as well as building their own nation or place in the world by forcing such an act of destruction. As much as I despise that notion I can not help but concur it.
S00042476
ID:45792
ReplyDeleteBauman has emphasized the modernity of genocide and describe it not as a distractive activity but a creative one; by building a more beautiful, perfect, moral, and more efficient human world. To him, modern culture is a garden culture; it defines itself as the design for an ideal life and a perfect arrangement of human conditions. In order for the garden to flourish it needs tools, materials, defenses against the unrelenting danger of what is obviously disorder. All who vision society as a garden defines part of the human habitat as human weeds. They must be segregated, contained, prevented from spreading, removed, and kept outside the society boundaries and that’s when modern genocide comes into the picture. Bauman mentions that the modernity of the holocaust challenges orthodox approaches to the sociology of morality, political, and that the Nazi imperialism was a carrier of a culture more modern then people recognized it to be. Even though Freeman agrees with him; he mentions that in doing so he must ably modern forms of analysis as he mentioned two problems with reporting ancient text. First, is that they might be exaggerated or lies for the purpose of official propaganda and the makers may have intended to flatter the ruler, impress their people, or terrify their enemies. Second problem is that we have to grasp the meaning for example, elimination of the enemy might mean the death of a leader, or great warrior. Freeman also argues that even though Bauman is correct to equate civilization with modernity and is correct to associate genocide with the bureaucratic state and incapacity of civil society to constrain the state, he overlooks the association between genocide and warfare. Although he draws correct and important lesson from the holocaust about the dangers inherent in modern society, he misses out on the important lessons of the holocaust and these lessons are to be learned of what was not modern from the holocaust, as he mentions the similarities between the ancient and modern practice of warfare. Despite the enormous technological advances of modern times, and whether the war was fought for gain, glory, revenge, appropriate other mens’ children, wives, cattle, land, etc. disabling of enemy cities was/is a strategic imperative. the destruction of cities has been a primary object of warfare from the earliest recorded to the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki in WWII, their goals were similar to the great Uban slaughter of history which is to kill, destroy, terrorize to conquer the more efficiently. Freeman had also proposed that there is a savage war and a civilized one, however the civilized one could be more distractive. Finally, Freeman mentions that Bauman underemphasize the humanizing aspirations of such characteristically modern institutions as international law.
43240
ReplyDeleteIt is in my opinion that Genocide is a modern creation of civilization that is based on ancient human nature. Humans have an inherited heterophobia. What is different will always be uncomfortable, initially, but growth in itself is uncomfortable and is a necessary part of development whether it be physical or mental. Both Bauman and Freeman are excellent in portraying their views. Bauman exhausts the tedious bureaucratic language and breaks down how a society come to terms and accept heinous acts such as genocide. Freeman accounts that humans have always carried out mass murder for personal gain. Bauman also includes how the motives of the Holocaust were economic to begin with and the extermination of the Jewish population was a biproduct of Hitlers perfect society. Freeman also mentions how the Assyrians would go into warfare with surrounding populations to further power and economic gain. From my understanding of Bauman, it is the many ways in which we, as humans, label and how we use those labels that creates opportunity for vast destruction and the justification of destructive action. Freemans argument, that it is part of human nature to be destructive and is inevitable in societal growth, is part of the justification of Hitlers’ Solution. Freeman focuses on the build up of societies and how they became what they are today, where as Bauman looks at how we are with a meticulous microscope. Freeman is correct in suggesting that human nature and its motives are the same as they have always been. Bauman, through his meticulousness, shows how we complicate simple moral boundaries with the help of bureaucracy. Freeman mentions how social stratification could be a precursor to war and genocide; That is if the person in charge puts their personal gains above that of the people. Essentially the discourse between them argues the definitions of modernity and genocide. With the differing definitions come the differing perspectives. The Hutu’s and the Tutsi’s are both victims and perpetrators depending on where you choose to get your information from. The victim and the perpetrator are switching roles. One could argue that the repercussions imposed on Germans today is a violent act and under the right circumstances their past actions and current labels can be used against them in an act of extermination. Bauman in attributing creation to genocide instead of destruction refers to his analogy of society being a garden and the “weeding out” process builds the garden and helps it flourish. There is no perfect garden but there are many gardens constantly working towards becoming perfect, which in itself is perfect. There is no definitive solution to destructive human nature but there is a process in which we can manage it and maintain peace. The murder of one is equal to the murder of many; we need not apply different labels to the atrocities of man.